June 6th, 2011
Why Is the AJC, ADL and URJ Partnering With CAIR in fighting a proposed ban
of Sharia law in the State of Oklahoma?
An Open Letter To The American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League and
the Union for Reform Judaism
American Jewish Committee Attention: Robert Elman,
President -,
David A. Harris - Executive Director,
Marc Stern - Counsel
Anti-Defamation League Attention: Abe Foxman
Union of Reform Judaism Attention: Rabbi Eric
Yoffie
Dear Sirs:
Re: Why Is the AJC, ADL and URJ Partnering With CAIR in fighting a
proposed ban of Sharia law in the State of Oklahoma?
Background:
Last year Oklahomans by a margin of 70% voted for a constitutional amendment
that would bar Oklahoma courts from considering and applying Sharia and
international law in reaching their decisions. CAIR filed suit to keep
that constitutional amendment from going into effect. Other parties,
including the ACLU and your organizations filed briefs supporting CAIR's
position, which while dealing with the ban on international law, was
primarily focused on the matter of Sharia.
Pipelinenews.Org <http://Pipelinenews.Org/> recently distributed a piece
entitled: Why Is the American Jewish Committee And Other Jewish Groups
Partnering With CAIR In Support Of Shari'a? See:
http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=ajc5272011101%2Ehtm
The article cites a report in the online Journal, JC.Com <http://JC.Com/>
by Ellen Tumposky.
http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/49526/jewish-groups-us-backing-sharia-l
aw
Ms. Tumposky's article cites the position of CAIR in this suit as being:
In the original lawsuit against the Oklahoma measure, Muneer Awad of the
Council on American Islamic Relations said the law would infringe the rights
of Oklahomans to wear religious head scarves, choose Islamic marriage
contracts or to be buried according to Islamic practices.
The original case which CAIR brought and your organizations subsequently
filed briefs in support of, was first reported in the Wall Street Journal
at:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704805204575594793733847372
.html
In that article the following is reported:
A Muslim activist in Oklahoma City filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging a
voter-approved measure that bars Oklahoma state judges from considering
Shariah, the Islamic religious code based on the Koran and the Prophet
Mohammed's teachings, in formulating rulings.. The suit, filed by Muneer
Awad, director of the state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, asks the federal district court to block officials from
certifying the referendum. Mr. Awad says the measure violates the First
Amendment, which protects "free exercise" of religion and prohibits official
"establishment of religion."
In addition to the concerns raised by Pipeline News. Org, I make the
following points and raise the following questions put in bolded font:
1. If the issue before the court has to do with the Constitutional
Amendment being discriminatory because it singles out Sharia/Islam to be
barred from judicial consideration, that is understandable. Generally
speaking, no religion should be singled out in such instance.
That does not however, seem to be CAIR's position.
If the bolded red font excerpts above, accurately describe the premise of
Awad's/CAIR's position, it appears that the primary objection CAIR has
raised by its suit is that the Constitutional Amendment denies Muslims
religious freedom.
Courts may and do take cognizance of religious law and religiously ordained
agreements be it Jewish, Christian or Islamic, such as in the case of
marital property division. If a person, who entered into such agreement
later files suit to rescind their obligations thereunder, the courts will
consider both those religious laws and the circumstances under which a
property division settlement was reached. If those religious laws conflict
with the law of the land, that ends the matter of considering religious law.
If the religious laws and circumstances under which the agreement was
reached, were not in conflict with the law of the land, that will be only
one factor amongst many other factors courts will consider in deciding the
issue before them. Courts will ultimately make their decisions, not with
regard to any applicable religious law, but only in accord with the State,
Federal and Constitutional law.
What CAIR is saying is that unless Courts give Sharia preference over the
law of the land, that amounts to a denial of religious freedom. On the face
of it, such position is ludicrous.
Since the issue is over the will of 70% of Oklahomans not wanting their
legal system and laws to incorporate and be subservient to Sharia over the
law of the land, what then does CAIR's position, as expressed by Awad, have
to do with infringing the religious rights of Muslim Oklahomans?
In that your 3 organizations agree with CAIR on this point, will you
justify your position in that regard?
2. What is your reaction to the above noted article in
Pipelinenews.org <http://Pipelinenews.org/> ?
3. We live at a time when Islamofacism poses a manifest danger to
Jews, Israel, Christians, Americans and the West generally. CAIR's
Islamofacist roots are well known. CAIR's advocacy/activism does not mark
it as a friend of the Jews or of Israel.
Jews/Israel need all the friends they can get to confront and combat
Islamofacism, be it from Muslim nations or from the Islamofacists in the
midst of Western nations, including America.
What then possessed the AJC, ADL and URJ to ally with CAIR in its challenge
to the understandable and justifiable concerns of 70% of Oklahomans that
gave rise to this proposed Constitutional amendment?
Are you not risking alienating at least some of those 70% of Oklahomans who
are favorably disposed to Jews and Israel by standing against their
legitimate understandable concerns, even if for various legal reasons the
way they have tried to express those concerns, might not be constitutionally
valid?
Did your organizations believe that by allying with CAIR in this case, CAIR
would be forever grateful and that would see your efforts at outreach to
American Muslim communities and their leadership, such as CAIR enjoying
greater success than has thus far been achieved?
In this regard, I can't help but note Rabbi Yoffie's February, 2011 article
An Appeal to My Muslim Friends http://www.forward.com/articles/135623/
In that article, Rabbi Yoffie plaintively called on his "Muslim friends" to
honor their friendship and pledges to stand with Jews against anti-semitism.
I read Rabbi Yoffie's appeal as nothing less than his tacit, but unwitting
admission that the friendship he believed he had achieved with the Muslim
community leaders and the pledges those leaders had given him to stand with
the Jews against anti-semitism, were not worth nearly as much as he had led
himself to believe.
4. None of the leaders of your organizations are elected by the
Jewish communities at large or by your respective constituencies, yet you
all presume or claim to speak for American Jews.
Under what mandate but your own, do you have authority to speak on behalf of
Jewish communities at large or for the specific constituencies you claim to
represent?
When Jews challenge your actions to hold you to account, as is being done
in this case, do any of your organizations have within your mandate, a
stated obligation to accordingly respond and defend your actions and
further, regardless of whether such obligation is or is not part of your
respective mandates, do you have the wherewithal and will to do just that?
This Open Letter requests that all 3 of your organizations be held to
account by explaining, justifying and defending your position in respect of
the questions and concerns raised herein.
Will you do so?
Bill Narvey
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
